Changes for page Test

Summary

• Page properties (1 modified, 0 added, 0 removed)

Details

Page properties

Content

...	...	@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@
36	36
37	37	* Walking a route
38	38	* Wandering off during a walk
	39	+* Falling and alerting a caretaker
39	39
40	40	Walking a route
41	41	The person with dementia will walk a route guided by either a caretaker or by the MiRo.
...	...	@@ -43,6 +43,9 @@
43	43	Wandering off during a walk
44	44	A person with dementia may become lost in their current surroundings. They might wander off from the predetermined route. Depending on the study group, either the caretaker or the MiRo will guide the person back to the route.
45	45
	47	+Falling and alerting a caretaker
	48	+When a person with dementia gets in trouble when walking around, it is very important that they receive immediate attention.
	49	+
46	46	== Measures ==
47	47
48	48	To measure the effectiveness of our solution, we use a questionnaire. Since people with dementia may experience difficulties with expressing themselves in a conversation, this questionnaire is lead by an interviewer [[(Neerincx et al., to appear)>>]]. A caretaker may also be present to help the person with dementia accurately express themselves.
...	...	@@ -107,11 +107,9 @@
107	107	= Discussion =
108	108
109	109	Through this test, we aim to answer the question: "Does walking with the MiRo increase the perceived autonomy of people with dementia, compared to walking under guidance of a caretaker?"
110		-We see that in the current state of our prototype, this is not the case. The caretaker is preferred when asked if the user feels in charge, feels safe, and feels trustworthy. However, we note that the MiRo does slightly outperform the caretaker in regards to happiness. We think that further development is needed to accurately gauge if walking with a MiRo will eventually score equally or better compared to walking with a caretaker.
111		-We see flaws in the limited testing setup that was available to us. With only eight participants, it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions from the experiment. Additionally, these participants were actors and not real people with dementia, which may have caused bias in our results. Finally, while we intended to have the participants walk through a hallway accompanied by MiRo, we only had a meeting room available to conduct the experiment in.
	114	+We can conclude that in the current state of our prototype, this is not the case. The caretaker is preferred when asked if the user feels in charge, feels safe, and feels trustworthy. However, we note that the MiRo does slightly outperform the caretaker in regards to happiness. We think that further development is needed to accurately gauge if walking with a MiRo will eventually score equally or better compared to walking with a caretaker.
112	112
113	113
114		-
115	115	==== Inclusivity ====
116	116
117	117	In addition to the questionnaire, we conducted a short interview with our participant who is hard-of-hearing. Their study was conducted without them wearing their hearing aids.
...	...	@@ -121,8 +121,3 @@
121	121
122	122
123	123	= Conclusions =
124		-In conclusion, the prototype as-is is not capable of outperforming the benefits of a traditional walk with a caretaker. Additional work is needed to bring the prototype to a state of usability where users walking with MiRo can feel trust, happiness, safety, and being in charge. We would like to conduct a similar experiment with real people with dementia, in a setting that is familiar to them, to properly simulate a realistic use case. In the future, we would increase the number of participants to gain better insights into the usability of our prototype.
125		-
126		-
127		-
128		-